My PL 100-400 lens is very picky with UV filters

[Big Ga]

Seems that the 100-400mm lens is very picky with filters!!

Very interesting.

To add to the conversation:

Over the years, I've seen numerous claims from people (on other forums) about filters noticeably degrading the IQ, specifically on longer telephoto lenses only. The Nikon 70-300 specifically pops into mind. I myself was initially sceptical (especially as it was claimed that the same filters tested on shorter focal length lenses were fine). Hover many, many sample images were posted to show the effect and a number of other people then came along and confirmed it. It does happen, and subsequently I've seen it myself.

BUT...

This was quite some time ago (before magnified live view focusing!) , and back then it was theorised that something in the filter was throwing the AF off.

I doubt this could be the case with MFT.

So what exactly is causing the effect? And why does it seem to only affect longer telephoto lenses, and why might it possibly affect some models more than others?

But it does happen. Don't listen to anyone who blanket denies it.

 

[glassoholic]

Here is your answer. Very interesting. Thanks for reporting your issues.

Clarkvision.com: Evaluating Filter Quality

 

[photofan1986]

Yes, it should be written on the packaging: UV filters are bad for your sharpness.

 

[Robiro]

Thank you so much! This is perfectly in line with my experience in using UV and CPL filters with Pana 100-300mm. I soon learned not to use them at all.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

The 100-400 has a very capable lens shade system and that should save the front element as long as the shade is secured properly.

Years ago, I used my Panasonic-Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro without a filter, keeping the nice metal hood on at all times.

One day, I noticed a drop of sap on the lens. It was not easy to remove. From then, I used a protective filter on the lens.

- Richard

 

[glassoholic]

So it is proven in the link I posted that because super tele lenses "see" a large portion of the filter this is a problem.

What about a wide angle lens like the 12mm f2 or the 12-40mm 2.8 and many other m43 lenses where there is a relatively large front element to filter size ratio? There is just a retaining ring holding the front element and then a filter thread almost the same size. These lenses must be "seeing" a large percentage of the filter area as well??

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

Yes, it should be written on the packaging: UV filters are bad for your sharpness.

... and contrast.

 

[Nawty]

Seems that the 100-400mm lens is very picky with filters!!

Here is the story:

I got the 100-400 some days before.

While I was very happy testing the lens at the shop (compared it to 40-150/2.8 and 300/4), coming home I noticed very bad blur in the range of 350 to 400mm. From 100-300mm the lens was still perfect.

I was starting to believe my new lens is defect, but I remembered that I slapped an expensive UV filter in front of the lens as soon as I came home.

I removed the filter and voila, the lens was sharp again.

I use the same brand on my 40-150 PRO lens and I never noticed any IQ degradation. It's a Hoya HD UV filter which was tested third place in the big lenstip.com filter test. Definitely not a bad or cheap product.

I ALWAYS use filters to protect my better lenses from damage. As a replacement for the Hoya filter, I took an old Nikon filter out of my drawer. While it does much better sharpness wise, the coating of this old filter is very simple. I will buy the Olympus ZUIKO PRO filter next. Hope it does better ...

100% crop: ISO test chart at 400mm without (left) and with filter (right).

100% crop: close up with (left) and without filter (right)

Now as I know the UV filter issue, on close inspection my 40-150 PRO shows some loss of resolution too, but to a much lesser degree:

100% crop: 40-150/2.8 with MC14 at 210mm without (left) and with filter (right)

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

ALL filters degrade optical quality, the better the filter the less the degradation.

The more you magnify the more it degrades so it is hardly surprising that in a lens with such a long focal length (i.e. magnification) shows more degradation than a shorter lens. You are just magnifying the imperfections in the filter.

The simple answer is simply to not use a filter for protection, unless you are shooting in a sand storm or a mud pit they really aren't needed.

The only real reason to use a filter is where the artistic outcome overweighs the reduction in quality such as with ND filters or a CPL.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

So it is proven in the link I posted that because super tele lenses "see" a large portion of the filter this is a problem.

What about a wide angle lens like the 12mm f2 or the 12-40mm 2.8 and many other m43 lenses where there is a relatively large front element to filter size ratio? There is just a retaining ring holding the front element and then a filter thread almost the same size. These lenses must be "seeing" a large percentage of the filter area as well??

 

[Tom Axford]

So it is proven in the link I posted that because super tele lenses "see" a large portion of the filter this is a problem.

What about a wide angle lens like the 12mm f2 or the 12-40mm 2.8 and many other m43 lenses where there is a relatively large front element to filter size ratio? There is just a retaining ring holding the front element and then a filter thread almost the same size. These lenses must be "seeing" a large percentage of the filter area as well??

Yes and no!

With a wide-angle lens with a large front element, while all parts of the front element are used overall, for any given point on the image, the bundle of rays forming that point come through only a tiny fraction of that large front element. So lens aberrations at each point individually are dependent on only a tiny fraction of the filter. Errors in the filter surfaces then become much less significant.

 

[CrisPhoto]

Hey folks, thank you all for your competent comments. I see that you are feeling with me. Though attaching 400mm to an UV filter is still new to mFT world, it seem to trigger some responses.

And we managed to get a civilized discussion on the old filter/no filter issue ...

I want to answer some of your questions:

1. Fake sample:

I have two samples of the same "Hoya HD UV" filter which I bought for different lenses in different years. I don't think I bought two fake filters, I really think they are genuine Hoya filters.

2. Autofocus influence:

Yes, this is an interesting point and I made a small test:

Sharpness degradation is worse if the filter was on lens during AF, so in addition to the blur introduced by the filter, the AF algorithm does not like the filter at all.

You might think that the PDAF pixels in my EM1 don't like the filter, but I tested my EM5 too and the AF blur is about the same.

[ATTACH alt="100% crop: "no filter" versus "filter + manual focus" versus "filter + AF""]1405575[/ATTACH]
100% crop: "no filter" versus "filter + manual focus" versus "filter + AF"

What are my thoughts??

1. Going without filter and using the supplied reversible hood/lens cap only is no option for me. More than one time the lens cap came loose in my camera bag, happily scratching under my lens front. It is good to know that the UV filter and not the lens took this kind of massage ...

2. On my 40-150/2.8 I attached a non retractable metal lens hood 72x40mm sold by JJC. If the lens cap falls off, the hood will keep distance between front element and cap. I think about removing the UV filter and going with lens hood/lens cap only.

3. With my new 100-400 lens things are more difficult. The built in hood retracts itself, so in case of accident or inside my camera bag, there is no protection at all. The supplementary secondary hood is a little bit fragile and it is not a screw in type. I am afraid of damaging my lens body when the hood is slightly moving and scratching the lens body (OK, not the front element at least).

My current options : Either I go with another 72x40mm screw-in metal lens hood similar to my Oly40-150 solution. Or I will invest some money in a B+W or Olympus PRO filter.

Christof

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

 

[glassoholic]

Hey folks, thank you all for your competent comments. I see that you are feeling with me. Though attaching 400mm to an UV filter is still new to mFT world, it seem to trigger some responses.

And we managed to get a civilized discussion on the old filter/no filter issue ...

I want to answer some of your questions:

1. Fake sample:

I have two samples of the same "Hoya HD UV" filter which I bought for different lenses in different years. I don't think I bought two fake filters, I really think they are genuine Hoya filters.

2. Autofocus influence:

Yes, this is an interesting point and I made a small test:

Sharpness degradation is worse if the filter was on lens during AF, so in addition to the blur introduced by the filter, the AF algorithm does not like the filter at all.

You might think that the PDAF pixels in my EM1 don't like the filter, but I tested my EM5 too and the AF blur is about the same.

[ATTACH alt="100% crop: "no filter" versus "filter + manual focus" versus "filter + AF""]1405575[/ATTACH]
100% crop: "no filter" versus "filter + manual focus" versus "filter + AF"

What are my thoughts??

1. Going without filter and using the supplied reversible hood/lens cap only is no option for me. More than one time the lens cap came loose in my camera bag, happily scratching under my lens front. It is good to know that the UV filter and not the lens took this kind of massage ...

2. On my 40-150/2.8 I attached a non retractable metal lens hood 72x40mm sold by JJC. If the lens cap falls off, the hood will keep distance between front element and cap. I think about removing the UV filter and going with lens hood/lens cap only.

3. With my new 100-400 lens things are more difficult. The built in hood retracts itself, so in case of accident or inside my camera bag, there is no protection at all. The supplementary secondary hood is a little bit fragile and it is not a screw in type. I am afraid of damaging my lens body when the hood is slightly moving and scratching the lens body (OK, not the front element at least).

My current options : Either I go with another 72x40mm screw-in metal lens hood similar to my Oly40-150 solution. Or I will invest some money in a B+W or Olympus PRO filter.

Christof

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

My next question was going to be about AF...so was that the best AF result you could get? If so, I am staggered.

I was always of the belief that Hoya HMC or better would have virtually no effect on IQ.

I just did a test on my 150mm f2.0 and pretty much got what you are showing.



--
"You are a long time dead" - credit to my wife
Make the best of your brief time in this world

 

[CrisPhoto]

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

My next question was going to be about AF...so was that the best AF result you could get? If so, I am staggered.

I was always of the belief that Hoya HMC or better would have virtually no effect on IQ.

I just did a test on my 150mm f2.0 and pretty much got what you are showing.

 

[glassoholic]

--

OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

My next question was going to be about AF...so was that the best AF result you could get? If so, I am staggered.

I was always of the belief that Hoya HMC or better would have virtually no effect on IQ.

I just did a test on my 150mm f2.0 and pretty much got what you are showing.

 

[drj3]

Could the effect on autofocus be due to the filters being UV instead of clear.

See the following with B+W filters (but using a 50mm lens, not a long telephoto) using four stacked B+W filters and measuring resolution compared to a less expensive set of filters.

Not All Lens Filters Are The Same

photographylife.com

 

[CrisPhoto]

--

OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

My next question was going to be about AF...so was that the best AF result you could get? If so, I am staggered.

I was always of the belief that Hoya HMC or better would have virtually no effect on IQ.

I just did a test on my 150mm f2.0 and pretty much got what you are showing.

--
"You are a long time dead" - credit to my wife
Make the best of your brief time in this world

Yes, the AF result is very bad. And very repeatable.

Sorry, did not intent to spoil your day ...

Next I will go and test the 12-40 and 75/1.8 filter too. I used to protect all my favorite lenses and maybe this was a big fault ...

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

You don't state what aperture you used. I found that wide open the difference was obvious. More hazy and softer. One stop down it was much more subtle. For AF I ended up with a considerably different micro adjustment for EM1 PDAF without filter and AF was repeatably more consistent.

I look forward to your tests on other lenses. Hopefully just my filters on tele lenses are going on the scrapheap ☺

--
"You are a long time dead" - credit to my wife
Make the best of your brief time in this world

Meanwhile I tested the other lenses too.

The 75/1.8 showed very minimal effect with or without AF.

The 12-40 did not show any visual effect.

I would make the following "top ten", don't take the numbers 100% serious, it's just a guess:

1. 100-400 @ 400mm: resolution drops to 20% (like a bad 150mm lens)
2. 100-400 @ 300mm: resolution drops to 50%
3. 40-150 @ 210mm: resolution drops to 70%
4. 40-150 @ 150: resolution drops to 80%
5. 14-140 @ 140: effect hardly observable
6. 75/1.8: effect hardly observable
7. 12-40: no observable effect

I think the pronounced sensitivity of the 100-400 lens is caused by the AF going havoc if the blur is exceeding some limit. With my PL100-400 and the Hoya filter, AF accuracy goes down dramatically above 300mm. As AF is operating wide open always, stopping down the lens has no significant impact to cure the overall blur (filter + AF error).

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, O25, O60, O75
O12-40, O40-150, P 14-140

 

[Robiro]

1. 14-140 @ 140: effect hardly observable

But it is there. Between 100mm and 140mm you can see a slight resolution degradation with a CPL filter, on a per-pixel level.

 

[richj20]

I've used B+W F-PRO 007 Neutral MRC Filters on all of my lenses since going digital. I also use a B+W F-PRO CPL on occasion, mostly for getting a slow shutter speed for waterfalls.

Below are a few tests from this morning, all @400mm. I include the CPL, even though I wouldn't normally use it for these situations. An earlier waterfall photograph below.

Sign in a kids playground

Mallard Hybrid, Anas platyrhynchos

Pink Rock Rose, Cistus albidus

I've also used a Nikon 6T Achromat on different lenses for 30 years. I can't test as above, but here is an an example using in on the 100-400mm. The Neutral filter is removed:

Scarlet Sage, Salvia Coccinea

And here is a waterfall example with the B+W CPL:

Small Waterfall in a Local Wildlife Habitat

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[richj20]

The 100-400 has a very capable lens shade system and that should save the front element as long as the shade is secured properly.

Years ago, I used my Panasonic-Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro without a filter, keeping the nice metal hood on at all times.

One day, I noticed a drop of sap on the lens. It was not easy to remove. From then, I used a protective filter on the lens.

- Richard

 

[paul cool]

well I have now swapped my hoya hd uv for the pro 1 digital on my 100-400mm to see if I get any different images anyway the main reason for going with the hd I was told that they clean easier than the pro if they get marked stained dirty etc .

I must must admit the b&w filters looked liked they show no loss in detail .